Why Call It Equality?” Revisited
An Extended Critique of the Eige Gender Equality Index
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 8017283 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Caitlin B Schmid (0000-0002-6204-8910, University of Manchester, corresponding author), Mark Elliot (0000-0002-3142-4493, University of Manchester) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 168 |
| Issue | 1-3 |
| Pages | 389-408 |
| Publication date | 2023-05-27 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Social Indicators Research (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0303-8300 • E-ISSN: 1573-0921 |
| Publisher | Springer Science+Business Media (PUBLISHER • DE) |
| DOI | 10.1007/s11205-023-03126-5 |
| OpenAlex | W4378576099 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 6 |
| References cited | 29 |
In this paper, we review the methodology of one of the most comprehensive indices of gender equality, the Gender Equality Index by the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE). Building on Permanyer’s (J Eur Soc Policy, 25(4):414–430, 2015) critical analysis, we offer an extended critique of the EIGE’s current methodology, focusing on four interrelated issues: (a) the lack of transparency around the methodological decisions and the concomitant implicit theorising, (b) the continuing over-contribution of the ‘correcting coefficient’ to the index such that it predominantly captures achievement levels rather than gender gaps, (c) problems with the verification process and use of Principal Component Analysis, (d) issues arising from the aggregation and weighting of index components. Our analysis shows that in addition to the use of the correcting coefficient, other methodological choices (such as the use of ratios and geometric means) result in an unjustified penalisation of lower-GDP countries, reinforcing biased assumptions about gender equality progress in more affluent countries vis-á-vis lower-GDP countries in the sample. We call for greater transparency around theory, method and the relationship between the two while also proposing methodological improvements. These changes would bring the EIGE index closer to fulfilling its undoubted potential to provide a nuanced understanding of gender equality levels in the European Union and effectively inform policy development toward social change
Econometrics · Economics · Gender equality · Index (typography · Political science · Positive economics · Quality of Life Research · Sociology · Transparency (behavior · Weighting · Computer Science · Gender Politics and Representation · Gender Studies · Income, Poverty, and Inequality · Law
Enhancing the Understanding of the EU Gender Equality Index through Spatiotemporal Visualizations
Re-gendering Gender Parity Index
Slower than it appears? A statistical representation of the evolution of gender equality in Europe
Economic freedom and gender health gap in the E.U
Complex Expressions of Power. Aspects of Gender in/Equality in Violent Intimate Relationships in Sweden
Gender Egalitarianism in Focus
Gender and the European Labour Market
Gender Inequality and Welfare States in Europe
The Uses and Misuses of the Gender‐related Development Index and Gender Empowerment Measure
On the Measurement of Gender Equality and Gender‐related Development Levels
Neglecting Reproductive Labor
UNDP's Gender-Related Indices
Policy evaluation and gender mainstreaming in the European Union
Introducing the Historical Gender Equality Index
Measuring Socio-Economic Gender Inequality
Reforming the Gender-Related Development Index and the Gender Empowerment Measure
Why call it ‘equality’ when it should be ‘achievement’? A proposal to un-correct the ‘corrected gender gaps’ in the EU Gender Equality Index
Towards a European Union Gender Equality Index
The European Gender Equality Index
Justice interruptus
Measuring women's progress in a global era
Gender Inequalities and Economic Growth
Revisiting UNDP's GDI and GEM
The Measurement of Multidimensional Gender Inequality
| Unique citing works | 6 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 2 |
| Citation span | 2023 - 2026 (4) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 6 |